Services

Parties in row over affordable housing

YORK council has come under fire for planning policies which opponents say are driving builders away and compounding a housing crisis in the city.

A report published last week by housing charity Shelter showed York to be the least affordable place in Yorkshire and the Humber for young families trying to buy their first home.

The charity's research showed that only one percent of homes up for sale in York would be affordable for a family on the average wage, and at the time council leader James Alexander called the revelations proof of York's housing crisis.

Now the city's Conservative councillors have blamed the situation on Labour planning policies which until recently insisted on 50 percent of all new housing be affordable.

But Cllr Tracey Simpson-Laing is the Labour cabinet member for homes and safe communities. She has hit back at the Tory criticism, which she said focuses on a policy that does not exist - the 50 percent affordable target.

The party leader on the city council, Cllr Chris Steward, said “For most of its administration Labour has insisted on hobbling house building in York with doctrinaire requirements that developers provide unrealistically high numbers of affordable housing on development sites.

"The irony is that rather than providing more homes, including affordable housing, this merely resulted in developers not finding it economic to build, with the bottom line being pitifully little housing being built at all. Only recently have Labour back-pedalled on this requirement, but the damage has well and truly been done."

His council colleague Joe Watt, who is vice chairman of the local plan working group, has used to figures to call for a realistic Local Plan to solve York's housing problems, rather than what he claims is Labour's undeliverable "deluge" of housing which will overwhelm existing communities.

Cllr Simpson-Laing said: "The Conservatives cannot be honest with residents and simply say that their housing policies seek to drive those who cannot afford York's high housing costs out of the city.

"Our local plan ambitions will begin to address some of the problems of low housing supply, rather than what the Conservatives would have which is keeping house prices high for those who are fortunate enough to own their own home."

With elections next year, voters now have a clear choice with Labour the only party with housing policies on the side of people struggling to afford to buy or rent a home in York, she added.

Comments

Cllr Simpson-Laing said: "The Conservatives cannot be honest with residents.

REVEALED: Council warnings kept secret for 6 months.

So Cllr Simpson-Laing, your the party of openess and honesty with residents, I think not.

Cllr Simpson-Laing said: "The Conservatives cannot be honest with residents.
REVEALED: Council warnings kept secret for 6 months.
So Cllr Simpson-Laing, your the party of openess and honesty with residents, I think not.YOUWILLDOASISAY

Cllr Simpson-Laing said: "The Conservatives cannot be honest with residents.

REVEALED: Council warnings kept secret for 6 months.

So Cllr Simpson-Laing, your the party of openess and honesty with residents, I think not.

Score: 28

meme
10:10am Tue 1 Jul 14

The problem with York's policy is that for smaller builders it does not work
CoYC have a supposed viability test which if proven means a builder can develop less than 50% affordable, sometimes down to 20% BUT it allows a fixed profit which can be made when times are good and cannot when times are bad. The issue is that developers need the really good deals to subsidise the bad ones so an average does not work.
And its going to get worse with thresholds coming down and costs increasing. developers have been telling the Council this for years but political doctrine stops our labour leaders from listening. They softened the targets a bit and building sort of restarted but the Cons are right the damage was already done with smaller builders going bust or leaving the trade and only the big boys surviving which does not bode well for the diversity of housing this City needs.
It may be an unpalatable truth but we are a small City in big demand and nothing that can be done by CoYC will change that so house prices will remain high. Fiddling a few subsidised rental homes [lets stop kidding ourselves that there will be hundreds of affordables to buy] from developers is not going to make any real difference. the only real solution is to build homes through taxation ie developers pay a capital sum and the Council deliver them on their own land or land specifically designated for low cost homes. However the political dogma again says this is wrong as the house types should in the view of labour be mixed together ie pepper potted which does not always work for everyone involved especially in apartments where the social landlords don't want to pay the service charges associated with private development.
FACT York will NEVER have enough houses to satisfy demand.
FACT tinkering at the edges with planning policy will NEVER supply affordable homes to buy of any significance
FACT most so called affordable are social rented ie the modern equivalent of Council housing
FACT York have to advertise to fill these up and they are not even that affordable in rental terms anyway..........so much for the supposed huge waiting lists!
FACT Policy has damaged housebuilding in York, reduced the numbers of new builds and contributed to the issue
FACT CoYC have been told this for years but don't listen
FACT to have any impact on house prices we would need to build thousands of homes in York and that would create such an outcry that no politician would tackle this issue properly
FACT we have to get used to high house prices unless we want York to turn into Bradford/Leeds or similar

The problem with York's policy is that for smaller builders it does not work
CoYC have a supposed viability test which if proven means a builder can develop less than 50% affordable, sometimes down to 20% BUT it allows a fixed profit which can be made when times are good and cannot when times are bad. The issue is that developers need the really good deals to subsidise the bad ones so an average does not work.
And its going to get worse with thresholds coming down and costs increasing. developers have been telling the Council this for years but political doctrine stops our labour leaders from listening. They softened the targets a bit and building sort of restarted but the Cons are right the damage was already done with smaller builders going bust or leaving the trade and only the big boys surviving which does not bode well for the diversity of housing this City needs.
It may be an unpalatable truth but we are a small City in big demand and nothing that can be done by CoYC will change that so house prices will remain high. Fiddling a few subsidised rental homes [lets stop kidding ourselves that there will be hundreds of affordables to buy] from developers is not going to make any real difference. the only real solution is to build homes through taxation ie developers pay a capital sum and the Council deliver them on their own land or land specifically designated for low cost homes. However the political dogma again says this is wrong as the house types should in the view of labour be mixed together ie pepper potted which does not always work for everyone involved especially in apartments where the social landlords don't want to pay the service charges associated with private development.
FACT York will NEVER have enough houses to satisfy demand.
FACT tinkering at the edges with planning policy will NEVER supply affordable homes to buy of any significance
FACT most so called affordable are social rented ie the modern equivalent of Council housing
FACT York have to advertise to fill these up and they are not even that affordable in rental terms anyway..........so much for the supposed huge waiting lists!
FACT Policy has damaged housebuilding in York, reduced the numbers of new builds and contributed to the issue
FACT CoYC have been told this for years but don't listen
FACT to have any impact on house prices we would need to build thousands of homes in York and that would create such an outcry that no politician would tackle this issue properly
FACT we have to get used to high house prices unless we want York to turn into Bradford/Leeds or similarmeme

The problem with York's policy is that for smaller builders it does not work
CoYC have a supposed viability test which if proven means a builder can develop less than 50% affordable, sometimes down to 20% BUT it allows a fixed profit which can be made when times are good and cannot when times are bad. The issue is that developers need the really good deals to subsidise the bad ones so an average does not work.
And its going to get worse with thresholds coming down and costs increasing. developers have been telling the Council this for years but political doctrine stops our labour leaders from listening. They softened the targets a bit and building sort of restarted but the Cons are right the damage was already done with smaller builders going bust or leaving the trade and only the big boys surviving which does not bode well for the diversity of housing this City needs.
It may be an unpalatable truth but we are a small City in big demand and nothing that can be done by CoYC will change that so house prices will remain high. Fiddling a few subsidised rental homes [lets stop kidding ourselves that there will be hundreds of affordables to buy] from developers is not going to make any real difference. the only real solution is to build homes through taxation ie developers pay a capital sum and the Council deliver them on their own land or land specifically designated for low cost homes. However the political dogma again says this is wrong as the house types should in the view of labour be mixed together ie pepper potted which does not always work for everyone involved especially in apartments where the social landlords don't want to pay the service charges associated with private development.
FACT York will NEVER have enough houses to satisfy demand.
FACT tinkering at the edges with planning policy will NEVER supply affordable homes to buy of any significance
FACT most so called affordable are social rented ie the modern equivalent of Council housing
FACT York have to advertise to fill these up and they are not even that affordable in rental terms anyway..........so much for the supposed huge waiting lists!
FACT Policy has damaged housebuilding in York, reduced the numbers of new builds and contributed to the issue
FACT CoYC have been told this for years but don't listen
FACT to have any impact on house prices we would need to build thousands of homes in York and that would create such an outcry that no politician would tackle this issue properly
FACT we have to get used to high house prices unless we want York to turn into Bradford/Leeds or similar

Score: 19

Archiebold the 1st
10:17am Tue 1 Jul 14

meme wrote…

The problem with York's policy is that for smaller builders it does not work CoYC have a supposed viability test which if proven means a builder can develop less than 50% affordable, sometimes down to 20% BUT it allows a fixed profit which can be made when times are good and cannot when times are bad. The issue is that developers need the really good deals to subsidise the bad ones so an average does not work. And its going to get worse with thresholds coming down and costs increasing. developers have been telling the Council this for years but political doctrine stops our labour leaders from listening. They softened the targets a bit and building sort of restarted but the Cons are right the damage was already done with smaller builders going bust or leaving the trade and only the big boys surviving which does not bode well for the diversity of housing this City needs. It may be an unpalatable truth but we are a small City in big demand and nothing that can be done by CoYC will change that so house prices will remain high. Fiddling a few subsidised rental homes [lets stop kidding ourselves that there will be hundreds of affordables to buy] from developers is not going to make any real difference. the only real solution is to build homes through taxation ie developers pay a capital sum and the Council deliver them on their own land or land specifically designated for low cost homes. However the political dogma again says this is wrong as the house types should in the view of labour be mixed together ie pepper potted which does not always work for everyone involved especially in apartments where the social landlords don't want to pay the service charges associated with private development. FACT York will NEVER have enough houses to satisfy demand. FACT tinkering at the edges with planning policy will NEVER supply affordable homes to buy of any significance FACT most so called affordable are social rented ie the modern equivalent of Council housing FACT York have to advertise to fill these up and they are not even that affordable in rental terms anyway..........so much for the supposed huge waiting lists! FACT Policy has damaged housebuilding in York, reduced the numbers of new builds and contributed to the issue FACT CoYC have been told this for years but don't listen FACT to have any impact on house prices we would need to build thousands of homes in York and that would create such an outcry that no politician would tackle this issue properly FACT we have to get used to high house prices unless we want York to turn into Bradford/Leeds or similar

spot on....

[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote:
The problem with York's policy is that for smaller builders it does not work CoYC have a supposed viability test which if proven means a builder can develop less than 50% affordable, sometimes down to 20% BUT it allows a fixed profit which can be made when times are good and cannot when times are bad. The issue is that developers need the really good deals to subsidise the bad ones so an average does not work. And its going to get worse with thresholds coming down and costs increasing. developers have been telling the Council this for years but political doctrine stops our labour leaders from listening. They softened the targets a bit and building sort of restarted but the Cons are right the damage was already done with smaller builders going bust or leaving the trade and only the big boys surviving which does not bode well for the diversity of housing this City needs. It may be an unpalatable truth but we are a small City in big demand and nothing that can be done by CoYC will change that so house prices will remain high. Fiddling a few subsidised rental homes [lets stop kidding ourselves that there will be hundreds of affordables to buy] from developers is not going to make any real difference. the only real solution is to build homes through taxation ie developers pay a capital sum and the Council deliver them on their own land or land specifically designated for low cost homes. However the political dogma again says this is wrong as the house types should in the view of labour be mixed together ie pepper potted which does not always work for everyone involved especially in apartments where the social landlords don't want to pay the service charges associated with private development. FACT York will NEVER have enough houses to satisfy demand. FACT tinkering at the edges with planning policy will NEVER supply affordable homes to buy of any significance FACT most so called affordable are social rented ie the modern equivalent of Council housing FACT York have to advertise to fill these up and they are not even that affordable in rental terms anyway..........so much for the supposed huge waiting lists! FACT Policy has damaged housebuilding in York, reduced the numbers of new builds and contributed to the issue FACT CoYC have been told this for years but don't listen FACT to have any impact on house prices we would need to build thousands of homes in York and that would create such an outcry that no politician would tackle this issue properly FACT we have to get used to high house prices unless we want York to turn into Bradford/Leeds or similar[/p][/quote]spot on....Archiebold the 1st

meme wrote…

The problem with York's policy is that for smaller builders it does not work CoYC have a supposed viability test which if proven means a builder can develop less than 50% affordable, sometimes down to 20% BUT it allows a fixed profit which can be made when times are good and cannot when times are bad. The issue is that developers need the really good deals to subsidise the bad ones so an average does not work. And its going to get worse with thresholds coming down and costs increasing. developers have been telling the Council this for years but political doctrine stops our labour leaders from listening. They softened the targets a bit and building sort of restarted but the Cons are right the damage was already done with smaller builders going bust or leaving the trade and only the big boys surviving which does not bode well for the diversity of housing this City needs. It may be an unpalatable truth but we are a small City in big demand and nothing that can be done by CoYC will change that so house prices will remain high. Fiddling a few subsidised rental homes [lets stop kidding ourselves that there will be hundreds of affordables to buy] from developers is not going to make any real difference. the only real solution is to build homes through taxation ie developers pay a capital sum and the Council deliver them on their own land or land specifically designated for low cost homes. However the political dogma again says this is wrong as the house types should in the view of labour be mixed together ie pepper potted which does not always work for everyone involved especially in apartments where the social landlords don't want to pay the service charges associated with private development. FACT York will NEVER have enough houses to satisfy demand. FACT tinkering at the edges with planning policy will NEVER supply affordable homes to buy of any significance FACT most so called affordable are social rented ie the modern equivalent of Council housing FACT York have to advertise to fill these up and they are not even that affordable in rental terms anyway..........so much for the supposed huge waiting lists! FACT Policy has damaged housebuilding in York, reduced the numbers of new builds and contributed to the issue FACT CoYC have been told this for years but don't listen FACT to have any impact on house prices we would need to build thousands of homes in York and that would create such an outcry that no politician would tackle this issue properly FACT we have to get used to high house prices unless we want York to turn into Bradford/Leeds or similar

spot on....

Score: 11

Bertie Masson
10:30am Tue 1 Jul 14

meme wrote…

The problem with York's policy is that for smaller builders it does not work
CoYC have a supposed viability test which if proven means a builder can develop less than 50% affordable, sometimes down to 20% BUT it allows a fixed profit which can be made when times are good and cannot when times are bad. The issue is that developers need the really good deals to subsidise the bad ones so an average does not work.
And its going to get worse with thresholds coming down and costs increasing. developers have been telling the Council this for years but political doctrine stops our labour leaders from listening. They softened the targets a bit and building sort of restarted but the Cons are right the damage was already done with smaller builders going bust or leaving the trade and only the big boys surviving which does not bode well for the diversity of housing this City needs.
It may be an unpalatable truth but we are a small City in big demand and nothing that can be done by CoYC will change that so house prices will remain high. Fiddling a few subsidised rental homes [lets stop kidding ourselves that there will be hundreds of affordables to buy] from developers is not going to make any real difference. the only real solution is to build homes through taxation ie developers pay a capital sum and the Council deliver them on their own land or land specifically designated for low cost homes. However the political dogma again says this is wrong as the house types should in the view of labour be mixed together ie pepper potted which does not always work for everyone involved especially in apartments where the social landlords don't want to pay the service charges associated with private development.
FACT York will NEVER have enough houses to satisfy demand.
FACT tinkering at the edges with planning policy will NEVER supply affordable homes to buy of any significance
FACT most so called affordable are social rented ie the modern equivalent of Council housing
FACT York have to advertise to fill these up and they are not even that affordable in rental terms anyway..........so much for the supposed huge waiting lists!
FACT Policy has damaged housebuilding in York, reduced the numbers of new builds and contributed to the issue
FACT CoYC have been told this for years but don't listen
FACT to have any impact on house prices we would need to build thousands of homes in York and that would create such an outcry that no politician would tackle this issue properly
FACT we have to get used to high house prices unless we want York to turn into Bradford/Leeds or similar

FORECAST York will NEVER have enough houses to satisfy demand.
OPINION tinkering at the edges with planning policy will NEVER supply affordable homes to buy of any significance
FACT CYC FOLLOWS GOVERNMENT DEFINITIONS most so called affordable are social rented ie the modern equivalent of Council housing
FACT ALL SOCIAL HOUSING IS ADVERTISED WITH THOSE QUALIFIED ABLE TO BID York have to advertise to fill these up and they are not even that affordable in rental terms anyway..........so much for the supposed huge waiting lists!
OPINION Policy has damaged housebuilding in York, reduced the numbers of new builds and contributed to the issue
FACT CoYC have been told this for years but don't listen (OR MAYBE THEY JUST DONT AGREE WITH YOU?
FACT to have any impact on house prices we would need to build thousands of homes in York and that would create such an outcry that no politician would tackle this issue properly
FACT we have to get used to high house prices unless we want York to turn into Bradford/Leeds or similar

[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote:
The problem with York's policy is that for smaller builders it does not work
CoYC have a supposed viability test which if proven means a builder can develop less than 50% affordable, sometimes down to 20% BUT it allows a fixed profit which can be made when times are good and cannot when times are bad. The issue is that developers need the really good deals to subsidise the bad ones so an average does not work.
And its going to get worse with thresholds coming down and costs increasing. developers have been telling the Council this for years but political doctrine stops our labour leaders from listening. They softened the targets a bit and building sort of restarted but the Cons are right the damage was already done with smaller builders going bust or leaving the trade and only the big boys surviving which does not bode well for the diversity of housing this City needs.
It may be an unpalatable truth but we are a small City in big demand and nothing that can be done by CoYC will change that so house prices will remain high. Fiddling a few subsidised rental homes [lets stop kidding ourselves that there will be hundreds of affordables to buy] from developers is not going to make any real difference. the only real solution is to build homes through taxation ie developers pay a capital sum and the Council deliver them on their own land or land specifically designated for low cost homes. However the political dogma again says this is wrong as the house types should in the view of labour be mixed together ie pepper potted which does not always work for everyone involved especially in apartments where the social landlords don't want to pay the service charges associated with private development.
FACT York will NEVER have enough houses to satisfy demand.
FACT tinkering at the edges with planning policy will NEVER supply affordable homes to buy of any significance
FACT most so called affordable are social rented ie the modern equivalent of Council housing
FACT York have to advertise to fill these up and they are not even that affordable in rental terms anyway..........so much for the supposed huge waiting lists!
FACT Policy has damaged housebuilding in York, reduced the numbers of new builds and contributed to the issue
FACT CoYC have been told this for years but don't listen
FACT to have any impact on house prices we would need to build thousands of homes in York and that would create such an outcry that no politician would tackle this issue properly
FACT we have to get used to high house prices unless we want York to turn into Bradford/Leeds or similar[/p][/quote]FORECAST York will NEVER have enough houses to satisfy demand.
OPINION tinkering at the edges with planning policy will NEVER supply affordable homes to buy of any significance
FACT CYC FOLLOWS GOVERNMENT DEFINITIONS most so called affordable are social rented ie the modern equivalent of Council housing
FACT ALL SOCIAL HOUSING IS ADVERTISED WITH THOSE QUALIFIED ABLE TO BID York have to advertise to fill these up and they are not even that affordable in rental terms anyway..........so much for the supposed huge waiting lists!
OPINION Policy has damaged housebuilding in York, reduced the numbers of new builds and contributed to the issue
FACT CoYC have been told this for years but don't listen (OR MAYBE THEY JUST DONT AGREE WITH YOU?
FACT to have any impact on house prices we would need to build thousands of homes in York and that would create such an outcry that no politician would tackle this issue properly
FACT we have to get used to high house prices unless we want York to turn into Bradford/Leeds or similarBertie Masson

meme wrote…

The problem with York's policy is that for smaller builders it does not work
CoYC have a supposed viability test which if proven means a builder can develop less than 50% affordable, sometimes down to 20% BUT it allows a fixed profit which can be made when times are good and cannot when times are bad. The issue is that developers need the really good deals to subsidise the bad ones so an average does not work.
And its going to get worse with thresholds coming down and costs increasing. developers have been telling the Council this for years but political doctrine stops our labour leaders from listening. They softened the targets a bit and building sort of restarted but the Cons are right the damage was already done with smaller builders going bust or leaving the trade and only the big boys surviving which does not bode well for the diversity of housing this City needs.
It may be an unpalatable truth but we are a small City in big demand and nothing that can be done by CoYC will change that so house prices will remain high. Fiddling a few subsidised rental homes [lets stop kidding ourselves that there will be hundreds of affordables to buy] from developers is not going to make any real difference. the only real solution is to build homes through taxation ie developers pay a capital sum and the Council deliver them on their own land or land specifically designated for low cost homes. However the political dogma again says this is wrong as the house types should in the view of labour be mixed together ie pepper potted which does not always work for everyone involved especially in apartments where the social landlords don't want to pay the service charges associated with private development.
FACT York will NEVER have enough houses to satisfy demand.
FACT tinkering at the edges with planning policy will NEVER supply affordable homes to buy of any significance
FACT most so called affordable are social rented ie the modern equivalent of Council housing
FACT York have to advertise to fill these up and they are not even that affordable in rental terms anyway..........so much for the supposed huge waiting lists!
FACT Policy has damaged housebuilding in York, reduced the numbers of new builds and contributed to the issue
FACT CoYC have been told this for years but don't listen
FACT to have any impact on house prices we would need to build thousands of homes in York and that would create such an outcry that no politician would tackle this issue properly
FACT we have to get used to high house prices unless we want York to turn into Bradford/Leeds or similar

FORECAST York will NEVER have enough houses to satisfy demand.
OPINION tinkering at the edges with planning policy will NEVER supply affordable homes to buy of any significance
FACT CYC FOLLOWS GOVERNMENT DEFINITIONS most so called affordable are social rented ie the modern equivalent of Council housing
FACT ALL SOCIAL HOUSING IS ADVERTISED WITH THOSE QUALIFIED ABLE TO BID York have to advertise to fill these up and they are not even that affordable in rental terms anyway..........so much for the supposed huge waiting lists!
OPINION Policy has damaged housebuilding in York, reduced the numbers of new builds and contributed to the issue
FACT CoYC have been told this for years but don't listen (OR MAYBE THEY JUST DONT AGREE WITH YOU?
FACT to have any impact on house prices we would need to build thousands of homes in York and that would create such an outcry that no politician would tackle this issue properly
FACT we have to get used to high house prices unless we want York to turn into Bradford/Leeds or similar

Score: -7

CommonSense!!
10:36am Tue 1 Jul 14

Government shouldn't tinker with pricing, let the market dictate it, areas such as York with high demand = high prices, areas like Teesside with low demand = low prices.

Government shouldn't tinker with pricing, let the market dictate it, areas such as York with high demand = high prices, areas like Teesside with low demand = low prices.CommonSense!!

Government shouldn't tinker with pricing, let the market dictate it, areas such as York with high demand = high prices, areas like Teesside with low demand = low prices.

Score: 16

tobefair
12:02pm Tue 1 Jul 14

If the council policy of affordable housing quotas means that it is not viable for builders to build on greenbelt land then I am all in favour of the quotas.

If the council policy of affordable housing quotas means that it is not viable for builders to build on greenbelt land then I am all in favour of the quotas.tobefair

If the council policy of affordable housing quotas means that it is not viable for builders to build on greenbelt land then I am all in favour of the quotas.

Score: 10

powerwatt
12:48pm Tue 1 Jul 14

tobefair wrote…

If the council policy of affordable housing quotas means that it is not viable for builders to build on greenbelt land then I am all in favour of the quotas.

No it means it is only viable to build on Greenbelt land. As it is the cheapest to develop.

[quote][p][bold]tobefair[/bold] wrote:
If the council policy of affordable housing quotas means that it is not viable for builders to build on greenbelt land then I am all in favour of the quotas.[/p][/quote]No it means it is only viable to build on Greenbelt land. As it is the cheapest to develop.powerwatt

tobefair wrote…

If the council policy of affordable housing quotas means that it is not viable for builders to build on greenbelt land then I am all in favour of the quotas.

No it means it is only viable to build on Greenbelt land. As it is the cheapest to develop.

Score: 3

julia brica
2:19pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Its been said many times by the Architect chappie 50% of nothing is nothing.
It seems he had a good point.

Its been said many times by the Architect chappie 50% of nothing is nothing.
It seems he had a good point.julia brica

Its been said many times by the Architect chappie 50% of nothing is nothing.
It seems he had a good point.

Score: 9

wildthing666
2:58pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Why don't CoYC just employ the builders to build homes, they used too, no bringing in 3rd party contractors that make a huge profit from building. The council are willing to do less & less while selling off homes left, right, and centre.

Why don't CoYC just employ the builders to build homes, they used too, no bringing in 3rd party contractors that make a huge profit from building. The council are willing to do less & less while selling off homes left, right, and centre.wildthing666

Why don't CoYC just employ the builders to build homes, they used too, no bringing in 3rd party contractors that make a huge profit from building. The council are willing to do less & less while selling off homes left, right, and centre.

Score: 14

julia brica
4:22pm Tue 1 Jul 14

James has his finger on the pulse and he is the man to sort this .
After all he has sorted all our other town problems with gusto and full expertise. Only a matter of time and all will be well and sorted.
I have every faith in the man.

James has his finger on the pulse and he is the man to sort this .
After all he has sorted all our other town problems with gusto and full expertise. Only a matter of time and all will be well and sorted.
I have every faith in the man.julia brica

James has his finger on the pulse and he is the man to sort this .
After all he has sorted all our other town problems with gusto and full expertise. Only a matter of time and all will be well and sorted.
I have every faith in the man.

Score: -13

bloodaxe
5:53pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Remember when Ma T sold off the council houses and forbade councils to reinvest the money raised on new building ? Typical Tory cynicism, complain about lack of housing and then complain when the government insists on a percentage of housing being "affordable" and then blame it on the council, claiming that this is driving builders away. How about raising wages so that those in work can afford homes ? We have a low wage economy but insist of a high wage culture of home ownership. This forces, virtually, lenders to lend more than is reasonable to some and deny many the ability to buy property. This means that there is less being built which only helps the vicious cycle. Far too much of the national wealth is tied up in unproductive housing rather than being invested in the areas of the economy which grow. In Germany house renting is the norm and they're hardly backward. If we are going to persist with the current model, then land needs to be released, councils need to get involved directly with house building. The neoliberalism of the Tories is not going to solve anything. The market is deciding and the market is bust.

Remember when Ma T sold off the council houses and forbade councils to reinvest the money raised on new building ? Typical Tory cynicism, complain about lack of housing and then complain when the government insists on a percentage of housing being "affordable" and then blame it on the council, claiming that this is driving builders away. How about raising wages so that those in work can afford homes ? We have a low wage economy but insist of a high wage culture of home ownership. This forces, virtually, lenders to lend more than is reasonable to some and deny many the ability to buy property. This means that there is less being built which only helps the vicious cycle. Far too much of the national wealth is tied up in unproductive housing rather than being invested in the areas of the economy which grow. In Germany house renting is the norm and they're hardly backward. If we are going to persist with the current model, then land needs to be released, councils need to get involved directly with house building. The neoliberalism of the Tories is not going to solve anything. The market is deciding and the market is bust.bloodaxe

Remember when Ma T sold off the council houses and forbade councils to reinvest the money raised on new building ? Typical Tory cynicism, complain about lack of housing and then complain when the government insists on a percentage of housing being "affordable" and then blame it on the council, claiming that this is driving builders away. How about raising wages so that those in work can afford homes ? We have a low wage economy but insist of a high wage culture of home ownership. This forces, virtually, lenders to lend more than is reasonable to some and deny many the ability to buy property. This means that there is less being built which only helps the vicious cycle. Far too much of the national wealth is tied up in unproductive housing rather than being invested in the areas of the economy which grow. In Germany house renting is the norm and they're hardly backward. If we are going to persist with the current model, then land needs to be released, councils need to get involved directly with house building. The neoliberalism of the Tories is not going to solve anything. The market is deciding and the market is bust.

Score: -5

bloodaxe
6:04pm Tue 1 Jul 14

CommonSense!! wrote…

Government shouldn't tinker with pricing, let the market dictate it, areas such as York with high demand = high prices, areas like Teesside with low demand = low prices.

That doesn't really deal with the point that there are many people who want to move to find work but can't find housing does it ? All governments tinker with pricing, just as they tinker with wages and education and defence and food and everything else. Prices aren't something isolated from everything else but a factor of them. Failure to invest in places like Teesside while vast amounts of cash are unproductively made (and much of it) redistributed abroad from London is part of policy, not a law of physics. Failure to support our own manufacturing while encouraging a get-it-as-cheap-as-p
ossible culture dependent on exploitation is a function of policy, not something written in the stars.

[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote:
Government shouldn't tinker with pricing, let the market dictate it, areas such as York with high demand = high prices, areas like Teesside with low demand = low prices.[/p][/quote]That doesn't really deal with the point that there are many people who want to move to find work but can't find housing does it ? All governments tinker with pricing, just as they tinker with wages and education and defence and food and everything else. Prices aren't something isolated from everything else but a factor of them. Failure to invest in places like Teesside while vast amounts of cash are unproductively made (and much of it) redistributed abroad from London is part of policy, not a law of physics. Failure to support our own manufacturing while encouraging a get-it-as-cheap-as-p
ossible culture dependent on exploitation is a function of policy, not something written in the stars.bloodaxe

CommonSense!! wrote…

Government shouldn't tinker with pricing, let the market dictate it, areas such as York with high demand = high prices, areas like Teesside with low demand = low prices.

That doesn't really deal with the point that there are many people who want to move to find work but can't find housing does it ? All governments tinker with pricing, just as they tinker with wages and education and defence and food and everything else. Prices aren't something isolated from everything else but a factor of them. Failure to invest in places like Teesside while vast amounts of cash are unproductively made (and much of it) redistributed abroad from London is part of policy, not a law of physics. Failure to support our own manufacturing while encouraging a get-it-as-cheap-as-p
ossible culture dependent on exploitation is a function of policy, not something written in the stars.

Score: -1

Buzzz Light-year
6:42pm Tue 1 Jul 14

julia brica wrote…

James has his finger on the pulse and he is the man to sort this .
After all he has sorted all our other town problems with gusto and full expertise. Only a matter of time and all will be well and sorted.
I have every faith in the man.

Wonder how many out there don't understand your parody and will just call for you to be gone and have any related comments removed?

Hmmm?

[quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote:
James has his finger on the pulse and he is the man to sort this .
After all he has sorted all our other town problems with gusto and full expertise. Only a matter of time and all will be well and sorted.
I have every faith in the man.[/p][/quote]Wonder how many out there don't understand your parody and will just call for you to be gone and have any related comments removed?
Hmmm?Buzzz Light-year

julia brica wrote…

James has his finger on the pulse and he is the man to sort this .
After all he has sorted all our other town problems with gusto and full expertise. Only a matter of time and all will be well and sorted.
I have every faith in the man.

Wonder how many out there don't understand your parody and will just call for you to be gone and have any related comments removed?

Hmmm?

Score: 2

Benjamin the Ass
8:52pm Tue 1 Jul 14

The only way to bring about affordable housing is to increase supply or reduce demand. What the council is trying to enforce is subsidized housing if the developer has to sell or rent a percentage of its houses at a lower cost it as to raise the cost of the remaining houses to recoup its costs. A young couple working full time on minimum wage would not qualify for affordable housing but would be expected to pay inflated prices to subsidize others who don't work.

The only way to bring about affordable housing is to increase supply or reduce demand. What the council is trying to enforce is subsidized housing if the developer has to sell or rent a percentage of its houses at a lower cost it as to raise the cost of the remaining houses to recoup its costs. A young couple working full time on minimum wage would not qualify for affordable housing but would be expected to pay inflated prices to subsidize others who don't work.Benjamin the Ass

The only way to bring about affordable housing is to increase supply or reduce demand. What the council is trying to enforce is subsidized housing if the developer has to sell or rent a percentage of its houses at a lower cost it as to raise the cost of the remaining houses to recoup its costs. A young couple working full time on minimum wage would not qualify for affordable housing but would be expected to pay inflated prices to subsidize others who don't work.

Score: 7

oi oi savaloy
7:17am Wed 2 Jul 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote…

Cllr Simpson-Laing said: "The Conservatives cannot be honest with residents.

REVEALED: Council warnings kept secret for 6 months.

So Cllr Simpson-Laing, your the party of openess and honesty with residents, I think not.

You got her there :)

Simpson-Laing shouldn't even be in this position, just look at her qualifications "In recent years she has qualified as an NVQ Assessor in Care and obtained a BSc and MA through the Open University." these are bull sh!t qualifications , i'm gonna take the labour stance and say she is actually a bigoted idiot!

The only reason labour want all these social housing is so they can fill them with 1 parent families (on benefits) and immigrants, these so called 'affordable houses' will not go to hard working indigenous families, fact! They will be at the back of the queue, then the housing benefit bill in York will just quadruple.... People of York, wake up and vote these idiots out!

[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote:
Cllr Simpson-Laing said: "The Conservatives cannot be honest with residents.
REVEALED: Council warnings kept secret for 6 months.
So Cllr Simpson-Laing, your the party of openess and honesty with residents, I think not.[/p][/quote]You got her there :)
Simpson-Laing shouldn't even be in this position, just look at her qualifications "In recent years she has qualified as an NVQ Assessor in Care and obtained a BSc and MA through the Open University." these are bull sh!t qualifications , i'm gonna take the labour stance and say she is actually a bigoted idiot!
The only reason labour want all these social housing is so they can fill them with 1 parent families (on benefits) and immigrants, these so called 'affordable houses' will not go to hard working indigenous families, fact! They will be at the back of the queue, then the housing benefit bill in York will just quadruple.... People of York, wake up and vote these idiots out!oi oi savaloy

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote…

Cllr Simpson-Laing said: "The Conservatives cannot be honest with residents.

REVEALED: Council warnings kept secret for 6 months.

So Cllr Simpson-Laing, your the party of openess and honesty with residents, I think not.

You got her there :)

Simpson-Laing shouldn't even be in this position, just look at her qualifications "In recent years she has qualified as an NVQ Assessor in Care and obtained a BSc and MA through the Open University." these are bull sh!t qualifications , i'm gonna take the labour stance and say she is actually a bigoted idiot!

The only reason labour want all these social housing is so they can fill them with 1 parent families (on benefits) and immigrants, these so called 'affordable houses' will not go to hard working indigenous families, fact! They will be at the back of the queue, then the housing benefit bill in York will just quadruple.... People of York, wake up and vote these idiots out!

Score: 11

courier46
11:22pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Yes Cllr simpson-Laing the voters will have a clear choice next year with Labour GET EM OUT!!!

Yes Cllr simpson-Laing the voters will have a clear choice next year with Labour GET EM OUT!!!courier46

Yes Cllr simpson-Laing the voters will have a clear choice next year with Labour GET EM OUT!!!

Score: 5

Badgers Drift
12:21am Wed 2 Jul 14

The council have caused housebuilding numbers in York to be far worse than they would have been had they not set their affordable target at 50% from April 2005 to December 2010. The target was illegitimate because it was not supported by a viability study. As usual, they cheated!

The council have caused housebuilding numbers in York to be far worse than they would have been had they not set their affordable target at 50% from April 2005 to December 2010. The target was illegitimate because it was not supported by a viability study. As usual, they cheated!Badgers Drift

The council have caused housebuilding numbers in York to be far worse than they would have been had they not set their affordable target at 50% from April 2005 to December 2010. The target was illegitimate because it was not supported by a viability study. As usual, they cheated!

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here